3 ms·

1. They've astroturfed a lot. (By paying famous people to use their service.) This has given them a lot of credibility. 2. They basically solve the business mo

1. They've astroturfed a lot. (By paying famous people to use their service.) This has given them a lot of credibility. 2. They basically solve the business model issue for writers, so you really can focus on the writing. At least, more so than the alternatives. 3. Their design is actually pretty nice, and focused on just two things: list building and content. 4. The defaults make sense, and solve real problems for people who want to make money with their writing.

gruez 5y ago
> 1. They've astroturfed a lot. (By paying famous people to use their service.) This has given them a lot of credibility. Paying for what is essentially celebrity endorsements seems like the exact opposite of "astorturfed".
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  I understand what they meant though: paying celebrities to join while giving people the impression that those celebrities joined by free choice* (ie because the platform was so great). * edit: free choice as in "not swayed by payment"
  - skybrian 5y ago
    They signed a contract of their own free choice because it was a good deal for them. This isn't hidden. There's no reason to hide it any more than a musician would hide getting signed by a record label.
    - notahacker 5y ago
      Sure, but it was a good deal for them because Substack advanced them a lot of money. Substack's platform features and general content creator revenue model may be better than most but are incidental to why those heavy hitters chose to join. Musicians complain a lot about Spotify being a poor deal for them financially, but there's no doubt it was an excellent deal for Joe Rogan.
      - skybrian 5y ago
        We know that for writers, Substack normally charges 10% of subscription revenue. Also, some writers said they would have made more money taking the normal deal over the Pro deal. However, a guaranteed paycheck for the first year is lower risk, so they took the deal. This all depend on your own efforts building an audience and it's still the case that most authors won't make much. But it seems like better terms than Spotify for moderately successful authors.
    - Cthulhu_ 5y ago
      Did they mention that Substack paid them to post? I believe disclosure is a defining factor between astroturfing and "just" marketing/sales/paid promotions.
      - skybrian 5y ago
        It's going to depend on the author and I only read a few of them, but some authors were quite transparent about the details of the deals they signed, much more than is usual for professional authors. For example: https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/financial-transparency https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/financial-transparency
  - DoneWithAllThat 5y ago
    You have a very different definition of “free choice” than I think is typical.
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      I mean free choice as in they decided unprompted. It's still a free choice in terms of free will either way - I'm not sure what the better term would be. Unprompted I guess.
      - Cthulhu_ 5y ago
        I mean. I'd probably post less shitposts on HN if someone offered me a financial incentive.
  - JacobThreeThree 5y ago
    >giving people the impression that those celebrities joined by free choice Paying writers for their work means they didn't choose to join Substack?
    - trynewideas 5y ago
      They didn't necessarily choose it for the merits of the service. There's no all-things-equal decision on features, model, or viability that the rest of us make when one throws significant money at you and the others don't. It's a free choice, yes, but it's one biased by an external factor (money) rather than an intrinsic one (good tools, support, long-term viability). But then people who don't know or understand this yet might subscribe to one of these paid contributors and think, gee, Substack must be a great platform because Famous McBrain writes on it, as opposed to the subtly more accurate point that Substack's _money_ must be great because Famous McBrain took it.
  - beagle3 5y ago
    The only writer I follow on substack, Scott Alexander S. (Previously of SlateStarCodex fame, now AstralCodexTen) went into all the details - what he was offered, and why it was a good offer - it wasn’t a bribe like most celebrity deals are - it was more like a book advance. He most definitely didn’t pretend to “just go there”, and his post on the subject mentioned a few others with similar deals by name. Do you have a problem when a publisher pays an advance to (say) Stephen King in order to get him to publish through them?
- skybrian 5y ago
  Although they are minor celebrities, it's not quite celebrity endorsement either. More like a book advance. They expect to make the money back from the author's own subscriptions.
deltarholamda 5y ago
2,3,4 are the technical answers, and I agree with them. If you're a writer, you can try to build some kind of a mix of Facebook/Twitter clout for your self-hosted blog (with all of the technical pains that entails), or you can try to get hired at lower-class wages by a print publication. Substack is a better solution for this, and it includes the mailing list building features that make it a superior solution to the social media treadmill. 1 is a marketing ploy, and while "astroturfing" sounds bad, it's fairly accurate and also a really good idea for what is a pretty niche market. All that said, I wish it wasn't this way. Siloing Internet content, even if the operation was an open, squeaky-clean, First Amendment-loving angel, is antithetical to the Internet ethos. And based on extensive experience, even the angelic operations eventually become not-so-angelic.
shuntress 5y ago
"Astroturfing" means many fake accounts pretending to be real accounts. Hence the name. Like fake grass. Celebrity endorsements are not astroturfing. You could make the argument that there are enough celebrity accounts and that those accounts are run by the substack marketing team that it should be considered astroturf but that seems like a long stretch to me.

gruez 5y ago

> 1. They've astroturfed a lot. (By paying famous people to use their service.) This has given them a lot of credibility. Paying for what is essentially celebrity endorsements seems like the exact opposite of "astorturfed".

beaconstudios 5y ago
I understand what they meant though: paying celebrities to join while giving people the impression that those celebrities joined by free choice* (ie because the platform was so great). * edit: free choice as in "not swayed by payment"
- skybrian 5y ago
  They signed a contract of their own free choice because it was a good deal for them. This isn't hidden. There's no reason to hide it any more than a musician would hide getting signed by a record label.
  - notahacker 5y ago
    Sure, but it was a good deal for them because Substack advanced them a lot of money. Substack's platform features and general content creator revenue model may be better than most but are incidental to why those heavy hitters chose to join. Musicians complain a lot about Spotify being a poor deal for them financially, but there's no doubt it was an excellent deal for Joe Rogan.
    - skybrian 5y ago
      We know that for writers, Substack normally charges 10% of subscription revenue. Also, some writers said they would have made more money taking the normal deal over the Pro deal. However, a guaranteed paycheck for the first year is lower risk, so they took the deal. This all depend on your own efforts building an audience and it's still the case that most authors won't make much. But it seems like better terms than Spotify for moderately successful authors.
  - Cthulhu_ 5y ago
    Did they mention that Substack paid them to post? I believe disclosure is a defining factor between astroturfing and "just" marketing/sales/paid promotions.
    - skybrian 5y ago
      It's going to depend on the author and I only read a few of them, but some authors were quite transparent about the details of the deals they signed, much more than is usual for professional authors. For example: https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/financial-transparency https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/financial-transparency
- DoneWithAllThat 5y ago
  You have a very different definition of “free choice” than I think is typical.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    I mean free choice as in they decided unprompted. It's still a free choice in terms of free will either way - I'm not sure what the better term would be. Unprompted I guess.
    - Cthulhu_ 5y ago
      I mean. I'd probably post less shitposts on HN if someone offered me a financial incentive.
- JacobThreeThree 5y ago
  >giving people the impression that those celebrities joined by free choice Paying writers for their work means they didn't choose to join Substack?
  - trynewideas 5y ago
    They didn't necessarily choose it for the merits of the service. There's no all-things-equal decision on features, model, or viability that the rest of us make when one throws significant money at you and the others don't. It's a free choice, yes, but it's one biased by an external factor (money) rather than an intrinsic one (good tools, support, long-term viability). But then people who don't know or understand this yet might subscribe to one of these paid contributors and think, gee, Substack must be a great platform because Famous McBrain writes on it, as opposed to the subtly more accurate point that Substack's _money_ must be great because Famous McBrain took it.
- beagle3 5y ago
  The only writer I follow on substack, Scott Alexander S. (Previously of SlateStarCodex fame, now AstralCodexTen) went into all the details - what he was offered, and why it was a good offer - it wasn’t a bribe like most celebrity deals are - it was more like a book advance. He most definitely didn’t pretend to “just go there”, and his post on the subject mentioned a few others with similar deals by name. Do you have a problem when a publisher pays an advance to (say) Stephen King in order to get him to publish through them?
skybrian 5y ago
Although they are minor celebrities, it's not quite celebrity endorsement either. More like a book advance. They expect to make the money back from the author's own subscriptions.

deltarholamda 5y ago

2,3,4 are the technical answers, and I agree with them. If you're a writer, you can try to build some kind of a mix of Facebook/Twitter clout for your self-hosted blog (with all of the technical pains that entails), or you can try to get hired at lower-class wages by a print publication. Substack is a better solution for this, and it includes the mailing list building features that make it a superior solution to the social media treadmill. 1 is a marketing ploy, and while "astroturfing" sounds bad, it's fairly accurate and also a really good idea for what is a pretty niche market. All that said, I wish it wasn't this way. Siloing Internet content, even if the operation was an open, squeaky-clean, First Amendment-loving angel, is antithetical to the Internet ethos. And based on extensive experience, even the angelic operations eventually become not-so-angelic.

shuntress 5y ago

"Astroturfing" means many fake accounts pretending to be real accounts. Hence the name. Like fake grass. Celebrity endorsements are not astroturfing. You could make the argument that there are enough celebrity accounts and that those accounts are run by the substack marketing team that it should be considered astroturf but that seems like a long stretch to me.